Firefighter refused call to Tucson shooting spree scene

[Ptah]

Firefighter refused call to Tucson shooting spree scene

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_68abdf02-1d37-5e14-9974-6eeff8a22210.html

A veteran city firefighter's refusal to respond to the Jan. 8 shooting spree, citing "political bantering,"
may have slowed his Tucson Fire Department unit's response to the incident that left six dead and
13 wounded, city memos show.

The firefighter, Mark Ekstrum, retired from his 28-year career two days later, while his supervisors
were still considering how to discipline him, internal memos obtained by the Arizona Daily Star
in a public-records request show.

In a Jan. 9 report on Ekstrum's actions, fire Capt. Ben Williams wrote that when Ekstrum first told him
he would not go out on the call, "he mentioned something about 'political bantering' and he did not want
to be part of it." He said he was acting "for the good of the crew."

Williams said he told Ekstrum he could not refuse a call for that reason, and then talked to the firefighter
privately in his office. He said Ekstrum "started to say something about how he had a much different political
viewpoint than the rest of the crew and he was concerned." Despite being told that was not acceptable,
Williams said Ekstrum informed him he was going home "sick," so they answered the call without him.

------------

What an unusual turn of events.

[Arctic Dave]

1. WTF!

[Stuart G]

2. Second that motion...

[Monique1]

6. Just was going to post this Ptah

This actually made my stomach churn. If this is true - he should lose his pension.

[Ptah]

15. Lose his pension? I think that's a bit much.

"The Fire Department later backtracked from that statement,
saying Ekstrum's actions caused delay during the preparatory process,
but did not cause a delay of the actual call."

[Ptah]

11. .

"The Fire Department later backtracked from that statement,
saying Ekstrum's actions caused delay during the preparatory process,
but did not cause a delay of the actual call."

[kenny blankenship]

3. So...I guess he figured the right people had been shot, and he wouldn't help them?

[Ptah]

12. Let's get outraged!!!!!!11!!!!!!!!!111

"The Fire Department later backtracked from that statement,
saying Ekstrum's actions caused delay during the preparatory process,
but did not cause a delay of the actual call."

[Ghost in the Machine]

4. Fire his ass for gross insubordination and take away any pension/retirement he has accrued

What a freakin' douchebag!

[Ptah]

13. Yes, let's get the punishment going!!!

"The Fire Department later backtracked from that statement,
saying Ekstrum's actions caused delay during the preparatory process,
but did not cause a delay of the actual call."

[Ghost in the Machine]

17. Let's throw reading comprehension out the window!!!11!!!

He still disobeyed a direct order, then feigned illness and went home. He's a fuckin' douchebag any way you look at it.

[MattBaggins]

21. That statement does not make a lick of sense.

[Ptah]

23. My header or the quote from the article?

[MattBaggins]

36. The qoute

It slowed us down except it didn't.

[frylock]

25. you keep posting this..

what, exactly, is the "preparatory process?" and if there was a delay in preparation to respond to the call, then there was a delay, period.

[Ptah]

31. There was a delay in the preparation, not the response.

[Gin]

33. semantics....end result still the same...

[Ptah]

35. Yes, the end result was that the response was not delayed.

[MattBaggins]

39. That's mathmatically impossible

[Marr]

46. Well, not necessarily.

It could be that the crew would be ready for a few minutes before the vehicle and equipment were ready. I have no idea-- just playing Devil's Advocate.

[MattBaggins]

37. That defies the very foundation of math and logic.

Unless they are quantum firefighters I suppose.

[Ptah]

41. If it takes 30 minutes to prepare for a call

And the call is for 90 minutes from now,
and the prep starts 15 minutes late, (ready after 45 minutes)
there is no quantum involved.
And the response is on time.

[MattBaggins]

42. If he delayed them 15 minutes they could have still been out the door 15 minutes earlier

hence he delayed them.

[Ptah]

43. But the call was for ninety minutes, not 30.

[MattBaggins]

45. The statement is a bad sentence and unclear

They are not saying why they were finally dispatched 90 minutes later.

The statement as quoted made no sense.

[Ptah]

50. I think dispatch scheduled them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Ok if the call came at let's make times up here

at 11:30 but the crew reported ready and on duty at 11:15 there was no delay in responding. There was a delay in the truck going ready on the other hand.

This is a problem for another reason. If Tucson has a four man fire crew, there is a reason for that, the truck left with three.

That is where the problem is, not in the actual dispatch and response.

Having done the management of actual EMS crews I know that in an MCI, this was one, you need every body you got on duty... and if you happen to have a few people off duty visiting, you nab them too. I have. (YOU, GET ON THAT RIG, PUT A VEST ON)

But it sounds it took them longer to declare themselves available to dispatch since this firefighter was simply not doing his job. As a supervisor, he should have been sent home, face disciplinary action and call in somebody else for the day shift... problem is that poor soul would have been on for 48 hours... In the US they are on for 24 and off for 48... there is a reason for that. The letting him retire well, I also get that, but don't necessarily justify it.

And yes, having one less body at an MCI... congresscriter or not, a mass shooting is a mass shooting. can reduce your Triage, treatment and evacuation efficiency. What saved their asses was that they had a bunch of cops trained as Emergency Responders too. Trust me, that can and does help.

[Ptah]

48. Thanks for the insight, nadinbrzezinski

It sounds like the engine arrived at the scene with a full crew.


"However, one of the fire engines had to stop at another fire station
to pick up personnel to take Ekstrum's place."

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. That meant getting out of the way

to do that, and that does delay response.

[Ptah]

55. Fair enough. I think the outrage is venal.

:patriot:

[MattBaggins]

49. As devils advocate and giving benefit of the doubt

is it possible they weren't dispatched but were just told to be ready? The department sent other units so was a determination made that this unit wasn't needed at first and then later they were dispatched to the accident?

[Ptah]

53. I think this crew was to set up tents etc for the witnesses and remaining victims.

[riderinthestorm]

57. So he and his crew already knew Giffords was shot

It's pretty incredible that he would be allowed to stay on after expressing any kind of political disagreement of any sort, that may affect his performance, when it comes to assisting at a shooting because its a political rally.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. Depending on their protocols that is very possible

as they probably were on a layered response.

IRL I used to have two rigs respond, and request more as needed.

The only time I got every rig in the city responding to the same incident (leaving the rest uncovered) was a wedding... we had 55 people hurt, from critical to walking wounded, I was the first unit on, and did not do a layered response... since I needed everybody. (A druk literally became part of the wedding party in his car, at high speed)

Tucson may have the same, since sending everybody and their sister means that the rest of the city is left uncovered.

Your first units, evaluate and request more distant units. As you need more units, you respond from outlying areas. Sometimes, if it sounds bad from PD, you send your first and second layer... and put the rest on alert.

Still, this truck had one less body on board... and there is a reason why you need all of them.

[Change has come]

60. It seems odd that you left this statement out of your OP.

:shrug:

[Ptah]

63. The copyright rules limit how much of an article can be posted.

[Change has come]

67. Certainly.

Posting the 5th paragraph after getting people riled up seems odd.

[Kali]

5. how strange

[Ptah]

7. Yea, I can't tell from this story what really happened.

[11 Bravo]

8. Every now and then, even Trump gets it right. You're fired, Bubba!

[Ptah]

14. Fired for what?

"The Fire Department later backtracked from that statement,
saying Ekstrum's actions caused delay during the preparatory process,
but did not cause a delay of the actual call."

[MattBaggins]

51. Insubordination?

[hlthe2b]

9. Well, I suppose I should be able to conclude something....

simply by reading between the lines... but alas... I don't have a clue what was going on with this guy--whether he was an ass or whether his crew were assholes politically or what?

Based on what is presented here, though, i do think he should have been fired, had he not left on his own.

[Ptah]

10. I can't be clear what happened here.

One sentence in the article seemed to minimize the effect
his action had on the response:

"The Fire Department later backtracked from that statement, saying Ekstrum's actions
caused delay during the preparatory process, but did not cause a delay of the actual call."

[CreekDog]

24. It's not unclear at all what *he did*. He refused an emergency call

over a bogus reason.

if it did not materially harm anybody, then that's a consideration, but it doesn't mean his refusal was okay and not worthy of punishment.

even he described what he did wrong --do you not believe his own statement about what he did?

[frylock]

27. it's what is colloquially referred to as CYA

[Missy Vixen]

47. It's spin speak

They're trying not to get sued by family members whose representation are now going to ask some pretty tough questions about what happened re: emergency response that morning.

IMHO.

[Arctic Dave]

16. "caused delay during the preparatory process,"

We had a saying for people who fucked the dog when I was on rescue. "Take your time, people are dying".

If this asshole was dragging feet because he had a personal issue then this asshat needs to be sued for everything he is worth and then some.

[frylock]

30. fuckin-a

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. If it was doing the shift check of gear and equipment

no, not really. If he slowed down actual response, he is liable.

[Arctic Dave]

34. If apparatus is going through checks then it considered out of service.

That does appear to be the case at all in this instance.

It seems this guy had a bug up his ass and was dragging his feet.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. It looks to me that politics got into the house

if you get my drift, that is the last thing you allow in the house.

so there is a lot more to this story...

Having done this as a worker bee and a supervisor... I am betting there is more to the story.

As to the checks... they are standard at the start and ideally end of shift.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. WOW, I have no words

by the way... any of my crews did something like that... there be hell to pay.

[Ptah]

19. It seems to me that his refusal affected the preperation but not the response.

"The Fire Department later backtracked from that statement,
saying Ekstrum's actions caused delay during the preparatory process,
but did not cause a delay of the actual call."

I have not ever been a first responder, so I have no experience here.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Well it sounds like politics entered the fire house

which should not under any circumstances.

As to preparation that sounds more like he was going to do a sickout, so instead of four people they had three to clear the rig for duty.

Either way, that be hell to pay for disciplinary issues.

I'd have to check on the house though and both the engineer and his captain.

[Ptah]

26. I agree, from the story, we can't see the dynamics of that house.

I appreciate your perspective, nadinbrzezinski.

[Lasher]

22. Enough with the spam already

Mark, is that you?

[Ptah]

28. Responding is spam?

My name is Lou.

[Lasher]

59. Pardon me for being harsh, but posting the same message repeatedly is spamming.

And against DU rules:

Do not spam the message board by posting the same message repeatedly, or by posting a flood of different messages.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[RagAss]

29. Why Wasn't This The Lead Fucking Story on Network News Tonight !!!!!!!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. There is a little issue on oh Winsconsin at the moment

now would be an ideal one to rag on public workers though

[Omaha Steve]

54. Az is a right to work state

Think this right wing nut is a scab too? "different political viewpoint than the rest of the crew"

[Ptah]

56. Who do you accuse of being a right wing nut?

[Omaha Steve]

61. Mark Ekstrum

The firefighter that refused to go to the scene.

[Ptah]

62. Why would a right wing nut vote for Giffords?

[hamsterjill]

64. Wrong! Wrong!! Wrong!!!

This man's personal political viewpoints should NOT dictate if or how quickly he responds to an emergency call. He should be disciplined, and he should be ashamed of himself.

[Blue_Tires]

65. Ekstrum's "statements" are a collection of the most noncommittal,

vague, ass-covering lawyerspeak I have EVER seen...I applaud his legal team....

[SidDithers]

66. Couldn't find any donor history for Ekstrum at either newsmeat or opensecrets...nt

Sid